Please ignore my question earlier this week about your not posting since March 7th - I've just seen a new post that was dated April 2nd - 'Questions of Morality' - and am reassured you are still writing.
Just to let you know that "Little Buddy" beat 2 co-workers, Phyllis Harris and Janet Thermidor, with a hammer and then burnt them alive. Janet Thermidor identified him and did not die for 12 hours. Seems that one of the witnesses thought their death was cruel and unusual. All for a little over 1000 dollars.
Looks like the Dolly Parton story was a rumour. I found this quote online:
'Judy and I have been best friends since we were like in the third and fourth grade,' she said in the interview.
'We still just have a great friendship and relationship and I love her as much as I love anybody in the whole world, but we're not romantically involved.'
Here are some addresses I found for the Milwaukee, WI, Chamber of Commerce. There seem to be more than one.
Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce (MMAC) 756 N. Milwaukee St., Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 p: 414.287.4100 f: 414.271.7753 e: info@mmac.org
West Allis / West Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce 6737 W. Washington St., Ste 2141 West Allis, WI 53214 (414) 302-9901 phone (414) 302-9918 fax
South Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce 2424 15th Avenue; P.O. Box 207 South Milwaukee, WI 53172 414-762-2222, ext. 141 laurac@smaconline.com
"The institution of private property was founded by acts of violence, such as our European forebears expropriating land that belonged to the Native Americans (who usually held land in common), and it continues to be maintained by violence to this day."
Canada was not formed this way. There are treaties with the First Nations back in the 1700's regarding peaceful relations between nations (both English and French), and how land was to be bought and preserved as First Nation land vs. Crown land.
There was much trading between the First Nations peoples and English and French traders as well, which supports the concept of property, even if that concept didn't look exactly European.
I am not an expert, and there were definitely mistakes made along the way, but there is a rich history of British and First Nation treaties that I'm just recently learning about.
For one thing, the First Nations are not conquered peoples. They have their own land, their own government, their own laws, and while their treatment is not stellar in Canadian history, as far as I can tell, the mistakes have been mostly bureaucratical and legal blunders of massive proportions rather than war. And such blunders can be fixed, and the work to fix these issues is continuing today.
It would be a mistake, I think, to consider ancient aboriginal culture and way of life as some utopia where no property, no government, and no laws were needed. Their versions may not have looked exactly like ours, but there were governments, there were laws, in general all men were armed, the death penalty existed, and there were wars between nations.
There's probably a lot we can learn from the First Nations. Their philosophy for dealing with wrongdoers may be significantly more advanced than ours. But to chuck the idea of government and property based on their history is going too far, I think.
I look forward to someday being able to chat more quickly about your views on private property, rather than through the slowness of snail mail. This abolition of private property seems to me to be one of the basic ideas behind anarchism, and I just can't see it, nor get behind it.
Does theft exist, to an anarchist? Is theft not violence? Is it only land that is to be shared communally? What about houses? Is my time not my own? What about my own work? Can I not claim the fruits of my own labour as my own?
If land were communal, and I could chop down the trees I needed to build my own house, and plant my own garden, would I have no claim to the result of my labour? Could another family move into the house I built and crowd me out? Could my neighbours come and harvest my garden in the night and I would have no recourse?
These are the basic questions that always seem to be glossed over in anarchic writings, but without answers to them, anarchy seems like a house of cards to me.
If property exists, then (potentially violent) defense of property must also exist, in order to preserve it. If property does not exist, then I am a slave to the first evildoer who knocks on my door and walks away with years of effort.
I think the concept of property is necessary, in order to demonstrate that theft is wrong. And if theft is wrong, then it is not wrong to punish it justly, and such punishment is necessary until the last thief disappears from the earth. Anarchists cry loudly against the government and the power it uses, but I hear very little cry against theft. Why is this?
So after reading your comment on "Stay" I ventured over to youtube to see if it was there. Nice song. :-) There doesn't seem to be an official video for it yet.
Miley is a bit of a puzzle to me, but a fun puzzle to watch.
I recently took at look at her "Wrecking Ball" video. I noticed there were actually two versions of it: the main one with her nakedly riding a wrecking ball that seems to conflict with the lyrics of the song, and a "director's cut" which has no wrecking ball at all. I thought the director's cut version was much more powerful. But either way, I liked the song.
After watching both videos a few (dozen?) times, I started to fancy myself as a director, and wonder how I would have crafted the video. The main video makes no sense to me. If the lyrics have any meaning, it's the wrecking ball itself that should explode, not the wall. And that would have been a cool video, if Miley was on a TV screen inside the wrecking ball, and the ball shattered at the end of the video against a solid brick wall. Oh well. Nobody asks me about these things.
I figured you may appreciate my critique, and so I pass it along for your enjoyment. :-)
RSS
This one has the wonderful feel of an old English nursery rhyme--something that should come somewhat naturally for you! :-)
Meribeth
Please ignore my question earlier this week about your not posting since March 7th - I've just seen a new post that was dated April 2nd - 'Questions of Morality' - and am reassured you are still writing.
I hope you get some kind of answers really soon.
With kind regards
Lavender
Looks like the Dolly Parton story was a rumour. I found this quote online:
'Judy and I have been best friends since we were like in the third and fourth grade,' she said in the interview.
'We still just have a great friendship and relationship and I love her as much as I love anybody in the whole world, but we're not romantically involved.'
- Chris
Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce (MMAC)
756 N. Milwaukee St., Suite 400
Milwaukee, WI 53202
p: 414.287.4100
f: 414.271.7753
e: info@mmac.org
West Allis / West Milwaukee
Chamber of Commerce
6737 W. Washington St., Ste 2141
West Allis, WI 53214
(414) 302-9901 phone
(414) 302-9918 fax
South Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce
2424 15th Avenue; P.O. Box 207
South Milwaukee, WI 53172
414-762-2222, ext. 141
laurac@smaconline.com
http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter2.html
Perhaps I can mail this to you in the next letter.
- Chris
You wrote:
"The institution of private property was founded by acts of violence, such as our European forebears expropriating land that belonged to the Native Americans (who usually held land in common), and it continues to be maintained by violence to this day."
Canada was not formed this way. There are treaties with the First Nations back in the 1700's regarding peaceful relations between nations (both English and French), and how land was to be bought and preserved as First Nation land vs. Crown land.
There was much trading between the First Nations peoples and English and French traders as well, which supports the concept of property, even if that concept didn't look exactly European.
I am not an expert, and there were definitely mistakes made along the way, but there is a rich history of British and First Nation treaties that I'm just recently learning about.
For one thing, the First Nations are not conquered peoples. They have their own land, their own government, their own laws, and while their treatment is not stellar in Canadian history, as far as I can tell, the mistakes have been mostly bureaucratical and legal blunders of massive proportions rather than war. And such blunders can be fixed, and the work to fix these issues is continuing today.
It would be a mistake, I think, to consider ancient aboriginal culture and way of life as some utopia where no property, no government, and no laws were needed. Their versions may not have looked exactly like ours, but there were governments, there were laws, in general all men were armed, the death penalty existed, and there were wars between nations.
There's probably a lot we can learn from the First Nations. Their philosophy for dealing with wrongdoers may be significantly more advanced than ours. But to chuck the idea of government and property based on their history is going too far, I think.
- Chris
I look forward to someday being able to chat more quickly about your views on private property, rather than through the slowness of snail mail. This abolition of private property seems to me to be one of the basic ideas behind anarchism, and I just can't see it, nor get behind it.
Does theft exist, to an anarchist? Is theft not violence? Is it only land that is to be shared communally? What about houses? Is my time not my own? What about my own work? Can I not claim the fruits of my own labour as my own?
If land were communal, and I could chop down the trees I needed to build my own house, and plant my own garden, would I have no claim to the result of my labour? Could another family move into the house I built and crowd me out? Could my neighbours come and harvest my garden in the night and I would have no recourse?
These are the basic questions that always seem to be glossed over in anarchic writings, but without answers to them, anarchy seems like a house of cards to me.
If property exists, then (potentially violent) defense of property must also exist, in order to preserve it. If property does not exist, then I am a slave to the first evildoer who knocks on my door and walks away with years of effort.
I think the concept of property is necessary, in order to demonstrate that theft is wrong. And if theft is wrong, then it is not wrong to punish it justly, and such punishment is necessary until the last thief disappears from the earth. Anarchists cry loudly against the government and the power it uses, but I hear very little cry against theft. Why is this?
- Chris
Huron
Ontario
Michigan
Erie
Superior
- Chris
Miley is a bit of a puzzle to me, but a fun puzzle to watch.
I recently took at look at her "Wrecking Ball" video. I noticed there were actually two versions of it: the main one with her nakedly riding a wrecking ball that seems to conflict with the lyrics of the song, and a "director's cut" which has no wrecking ball at all. I thought the director's cut version was much more powerful. But either way, I liked the song.
After watching both videos a few (dozen?) times, I started to fancy myself as a director, and wonder how I would have crafted the video. The main video makes no sense to me. If the lyrics have any meaning, it's the wrecking ball itself that should explode, not the wall. And that would have been a cool video, if Miley was on a TV screen inside the wrecking ball, and the ball shattered at the end of the video against a solid brick wall. Oh well. Nobody asks me about these things.
I figured you may appreciate my critique, and so I pass it along for your enjoyment. :-)
- Chris